i#6648 trim tool: Remove over-threshold timestamp #6671
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The original PR #6651 ended up keeping the timestamp (+ cpuid) whose value is beyond the trim-after threshold, as it logically makes sense to have that endpoint's timestamp. However, when that's across a blocking syscall, it canbe far into the future and result in large time gaps in the trimmed trace. Instead, we throw out the timestamp, as the PR #6551 did in its first form. (Other options such as editing the timestamp seem worse.) Adjusts the unit test that tests this. Issue: #6648
abhinav92003
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The original PR #6651 ended up keeping the timestamp (+ cpuid) whose value is beyond the trim-after threshold, as it logically makes sense to have that endpoint's timestamp. However, when that's across a blocking syscall, it canbe far into the future and result in large time gaps in the trimmed trace. Instead, we throw out the timestamp, as the PR #6551 did in its first form. (Other options such as editing the timestamp seem worse.)
Adjusts the unit test that tests this.
Issue: #6648